MHRA Funding

[TWGL1]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/freedom-of-information-responses-from-the-mhra-week-commencing-21-june-2021/freedom-of-information-request-on-whether-the-mhra-receives-funding-from-the-bill-and-melinda-gates-foundation-foi-21-624

[Gofer Blue]

Re: MHRA Funding

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...ion-foi-21-624

So what?

[TWGL1]

Re: MHRA Funding

Great answer , nice to see the blinded masses asking questions

[Gofer Blue]

Re: MHRA Funding

Ok, let me rephrase as you are not keen to answer. Dare I suggest that you may be questioning the independence of the MHRA?

[TWGL1]

Re: MHRA Funding

I think it’s questionable how it’s funded , but will I lose sleep over it, no.
It’s not surprising though is it …. Let’s see how this plays out.

[Gofer Blue]

Re: MHRA Funding

As I understand it the vast majority of funding for the MHRA comes from the fees which the organisation charges for licensing medicines in the UK, carrying out GMP inspections etc.

See: https://www.gov.uk/government/public...lications-fees

I suppose there is always the argument that as it is the pharmaceutical industry that pays the fees, then there can be the suspicion that this is open to corruption. From my own direct experience as a pharmacist working in regulatory affairs all I can say is that I have always found the medicines regulators (both in the MHRA and the EMEA) to be scrupulously honest in their work.

What is the alternative? Would you or I as tax payers expect to pay the fees on behalf of the pharmaceutical companies? Somehow I think not.

[TWGL1]

Re: MHRA Funding

As I understand it the vast majority of funding for the MHRA comes from the fees which the organisation charges for licensing medicines in the UK, carrying out GMP inspections etc.

See: https://www.gov.uk/government/public...lications-fees

I suppose there is always the argument that as it is the pharmaceutical industry that pays the fees, then there can be the suspicion that this is open to corruption. From my own direct experience as a pharmacist working in regulatory affairs all I can say is that I have always found the medicines regulators (both in the MHRA and the EMEA) to be scrupulously honest in their work.

What is the alternative? Would you or I as tax payers expect to pay the fees on behalf of the pharmaceutical companies? Somehow I think not.

The alternative is a completely independent agency funded by the tax payer banning political lobbying, and an industry that’s not funded by themselves.

Billions made on a drug , and then fined 1% ( £500m sounds a lot) of the profit if anything goes wrong. Maybe in this country is better but once the NHS is privately owned, the safeguards will be different.
Big Pharmaceutical pay the regulators.
What’s your personal view on the fact that Pfizer have tried to bury their results of vaccine trails for 70 years?

[Gofer Blue]

Re: MHRA Funding

The alternative is a completely independent agency funded by the tax payer banning political lobbying, and an industry that’s not funded by themselves.

Billions made on a drug , and then fined 1% ( £500m sounds a lot) of the profit if anything goes wrong. Maybe in this country is better but once the NHS is privately owned, the safeguards will be different.
Big Pharmaceutical pay the regulators.
What’s your personal view on the fact that Pfizer have tried to bury their results of vaccine trails for 70 years?

When you say "Big pharma pay the regulators" that is a loaded statement. Big pharma (and little pharma!) pay various licence fees just as you or I might pay government departments for our driving licences or passports - that is not to say that these departments are somehow in our pockets!

The whole medicines regulatory system relies on trust. The regulators can't be blamed if a particular pharmaceutical company chooses to falsify data. This would be very difficult to do anyway IMO as it would require huge cooperation from many different individuals within a company, people who would not see any personal gain. Withholding data is a different issue. I don't know how any medicine can be approved until ALL the required data is made available?

I don't know about Pfizer and vaccine trails (trials?) data going back 70 years - what vaccines are those?

[TWGL1]

Re: MHRA Funding

When you say "Big pharma pay the regulators" that is a loaded statement. Big pharma (and little pharma!) pay various licence fees just as you or I might pay government departments for our driving licences or passports - that is not to say that these departments are somehow in our pockets!

The whole medicines regulatory system relies on trust. The regulators can't be blamed if a particular pharmaceutical company chooses to falsify data. This would be very difficult to do anyway IMO as it would require huge cooperation from many different individuals within a company, people who would not see any personal gain. Withholding data is a different issue. I don't know how any medicine can be approved until ALL the required data is made available?

I don't know about Pfizer and vaccine trails (trials?) data going back 70 years - what vaccines are those?

Pfizer FOI request

https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fda-requests-55-years-to-complete-foia-request-pfizer-s-covid-19-vaccine

There has been a small data drop as we speak (although it says 55 years in this article)

Instead, the FDA has proposed to release 500 pages per month. "By processing and making interim responses based on 500-page increments, FDA will be able to provide more pages to more requesters, thus avoiding a system where a few large requests monopolize finite processing resources," the agency's defense said.

[Gofer Blue]

Re: MHRA Funding

Ah, it's about COVID, what a surprise! I have had both Astra Zeneca and Pfizer jabs in the full knowledge that these vaccines were produced in record time and therefore long term safety data would not be available. If there had been any serious issues during the initial clinical trials then the studies would have been halted (as indeed happened with the A-Z vaccine until it was properly investigated). So, yes, there was a risk. The alternative was catching COVID and I well remember those interviews with folk in hospitals who were near deaths-door urging the unvaccinated to have the jab asap.

I think these "heroes" who are strongly anti-vaccine should thank those people who did have it as the latter saved the NHS from being rapidly overwhelmed, potentially leading to apocalyptic scenes of people dying unattended on stretchers in hospital car parks.

[TWGL1]

Re: MHRA Funding

Ah, it's about COVID, what a surprise! I have had both Astra Zeneca and Pfizer jabs in the full knowledge that these vaccines were produced in record time and therefore long term safety data would not be available. If there had been any serious issues during the initial clinical trials then the studies would have been halted (as indeed happened with the A-Z vaccine until it was properly investigated). So, yes, there was a risk. The alternative was catching COVID and I well remember those interviews with folk in hospitals who were near deaths-door urging the unvaccinated to have the jab asap.

I think these "heroes" who are strongly anti-vaccine should thank those people who did have it as the latter saved the NHS from being rapidly overwhelmed, potentially leading to apocalyptic scenes of people dying unattended on stretchers in hospital car parks.

People near death well enough to be interviewed

Just for reference the government told us that 99% of people would have mild or moderate symptoms and that was prior to the roll out and the latest data suggest and IFR rate similar to good old flu

I think this interview should be pulled for misinformation

https://twitter.com/gbnews/status/1561046484073734146?s=21&t=gZ5Ue560vrBsgTc3VLkBwA

Anti vax as in a person who has had MMR ,typhoid , tetanus etc ?

[Wales-Bales]

Re: MHRA Funding

Ah, it's about COVID, what a surprise! I have had both Astra Zeneca and Pfizer jabs in the full knowledge that these vaccines were produced in record time and therefore long term safety data would not be available. If there had been any serious issues during the initial clinical trials then the studies would have been halted (as indeed happened with the A-Z vaccine until it was properly investigated). So, yes, there was a risk. The alternative was catching COVID and I well remember those interviews with folk in hospitals who were near deaths-door urging the unvaccinated to have the jab asap.

I think these "heroes" who are strongly anti-vaccine should thank those people who did have it as the latter saved the NHS from being rapidly overwhelmed, potentially leading to apocalyptic scenes of people dying unattended on stretchers in hospital car parks.

Worrying news coming out of Israel if true.

[Organ Morgan.]

Re: MHRA Funding

When you say "Big pharma pay the regulators" that is a loaded statement. Big pharma (and little pharma!) pay various licence fees just as you or I might pay government departments for our driving licences or passports - that is not to say that these departments are somehow in our pockets!

The whole medicines regulatory system relies on trust. The regulators can't be blamed if a particular pharmaceutical company chooses to falsify data. This would be very difficult to do anyway IMO as it would require huge cooperation from many different individuals within a company, people who would not see any personal gain. Withholding data is a different issue. I don't know how any medicine can be approved until ALL the required data is made available?

I don't know about Pfizer and vaccine trails (trials?) data going back 70 years - what vaccines are those?

I wasn't at all surprised to read your final sentence given everything you typed prior.

Pfizer are notorious shysters. So much so they were hit with a then world record corporate fine of 2.3 billion dollars in 2009 for falsifying data and bribing health authorities along with doctors. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justi...nt-its-history

Pfizer wanted to conceal their Covid-19 'vaccine' trial data for the next 75 years. If that doesn't raise a giant red flag at your end in view of their previous form then I have some 30 carat gold jewellery you might be interested in purchasing for a bargain price.

[Organ Morgan.]

Re: MHRA Funding

Here's more on that company's long history of skulduggery. https://www.dmlawfirm.com/crimes-of-...ll-documented/

Here’s a brief glimpse of Pfizer’s track record for safety and ethics. This is a short list, by no means inclusive of the company’s entire rap sheet.

Pfizer received the biggest fine in U.S. history as part of a $2.3 Billion plea deal with federal prosecutors for mis-promoting medicines (Bextra, Celebrex) and paying kickbacks to compliant doctors. Pfizer pleaded guilty to mis-branding the painkiller Bextra by promoting the drug for uses for which it was not approved.

In the 1990s, Pfizer was involved in defective heart valves that lead to the deaths of more than 100 people. Pfizer had deliberately misled regulators about the hazards. The company agreed to pay $10.75 Million to settle justice department charges for misleading regulators.

Pfizer paid more than $60 Million to settle a lawsuit over Rezulin, a diabetes medication that caused patients to die from acute liver failure.

In the UK, Pfizer has been fined nearly €90 Million for overcharging the NHS, the National Health Service. Pfizxer charged the taxpayer an additional €48 Million per year for what should have cost €2 million per year.

Pfizer agreed to pay $430 Million in 2004 to settle criminal charges that it had bribed doctors to prescribe its epilepsy drug Neurontin for indications for which it was not approved.

In 2011, a jury found Pfizer committed racketeering fraud in its marketing of the drug Neurontin. Pfizer agreed to pay $142.1 Million to settle the charges.

Pfizer disclosed that it had paid nearly nearly 4,500 doctors and other medical professionals some $20 Million for speaking on Pfizer’s behalf.

In 2012, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it had reached a $45 Million settlement with Pfizer to resolve charges that its subsidiaries had bribed overseas doctors and other healthcare professionals to increase foreign sales.

Pfizer was sued in a U.S. federal court for using Nigerian children as human guinea pigs, without the childrens’ parents’ consent. Pfizer paid $75 Million to settle in Nigerian court for using an experimental antibiotic, Trovan, on the children. The company paid an additional undisclosed amount in the U.S. to settle charges here. Pfizer had violated international law, including the Nuremberg Convention established after WWII, due to Nazi experiments on unwilling prisoners.

Amid widespread criticism of gouging poor countries for drugs, Pfizer pledged to give $50 million for an AIDS drug to South Africa. Later, however, Pfizer failed to honor that promise.

Pfizer’s Covid vaccine is being rolled out with nothing but positive press from every mainstream media outlet in the country. Meanwhile, more than half of Americans surveyed have said they will not take a Covid vaccine. The plain fact is that many questions remain unanswered regarding this, or any other, Covid vaccine’s safety and efficacy.

What we do know, from legal history, is that Pfizer’s past transgressions might lead some reasonable people to question whether or not they will submit to any vaccine made by the company.

[Gofer Blue]

Re: MHRA Funding

OM - what you have written is indeed a damning indictment of Pfizer but tends to confirm the gist what I wrote i.e. that regulators cannot be blamed if a company submits falsified data. If ultimately Pfizer's vaccine has been proven to be seriously damaging to public health due to falsified reporting, then certainly heads should roll and relevant personnel sent to jail.

Many of the examples you quote would have involved the cooperation of many people outside Pfizer - where were the whistleblowers I wonder? Perhaps quite happy with the bribes?